check_device

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a side effect – connecting over Wi-Fi automatically – which is valuable, but it does not state whether the check is non-destructive or modifies connection state, leaving some uncertainty about side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no fluff. Purpose and usage trigger are front-loaded, and the Wi-Fi behavior is a necessary caution.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a diagnostic tool with one optional parameter and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it omits parameter semantics and prerequisites (e.g., whether the device must be known/paired). The output schema covers return values, but the input side is under-specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single 'device' parameter has zero schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what value to pass (e.g., ID, name, or default behavior). This is a critical gap for a tool with a parameter; the agent must guess how to specify the device.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific diagnostic action: checking a phone's reachability and reporting what it is. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_internet (network reachability) and phone_health (device health), so an agent can select it appropriately.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call this first if anything seems wrong,' telling the agent when to invoke it as the initial diagnostic step. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the directive gives a clear trigger condition.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.